From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C172138010 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:17:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 103F421C05F for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:17:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from raba-115.swcp.com (raba.swcp.com [216.184.2.46]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646E4E09C1 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:15:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from chiita.swcp.com (chiita.swcp.com [216.184.2.198]) by raba-115.swcp.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q7KGFBRo096297 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:15:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from ebo@sandien.com) Received: from chiita.swcp.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chiita.swcp.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id q7KGFBgF016947 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:15:11 -0600 Received: (from swcpweb@localhost) by chiita.swcp.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/Submit) id q7KGFBUM016918; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:15:11 -0600 To: Subject: Re: [gentoo-soc] (draft) final report for OpenRC soc project 2012 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:15:11 -0400 From: EBo In-Reply-To: <86haryqn5x.fsf@gmail.com> References: <86wr1tcz8f.fsf@gmail.com> <86d333cngt.fsf@gmail.com> <5020DD0A.3030506@gentoo.org> <86ipct6k80.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <50235319.5000504@gentoo.org> <867gt75uab.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <5024CB9F.4060906@gentoo.org> <86y5lml15i.fsf_-_@gentoo.org> <86vcgpj8d8.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <5028BBBE.6060109@gentoo.org> <861uj8faqh.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <502C1903.1090805@gentoo.org> <86628jdyf6.fsf@gmail.com> <86y5leaxhd.fsf@gmail.com> <502DF2C5.5090209@gentoo.org> <86haryqn5x.fsf@gmail.com> Message-ID: <853de4b0ebf8a229a4882e623d370eea@mail.swcp.com> X-Sender: ebo@sandien.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.5.4 X-Archives-Salt: 053d3875-d0eb-46dd-8a50-8305f7bbe7a3 X-Archives-Hash: bb13aef8c3a42786cbab7b41b45f736a On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:04:26 +0900, heroxbd@gmail.com wrote: > Rich Freeman writes: > >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Luca Barbato >> wrote: >>> It can be not so tiny, surely busybox+openrc gives a better gain in >>> many >>> cases. >>> >> >> I suspect that it will depend greatly on what services you're >> running, >> and what order they happen to start in, and what you care about. In >> theory slamming the kernel with a ton of processes will allow it to >> manage its queues better with a fuller understanding of demand. >> systemd can potentially short-cut this a bit further since it can >> consider a dependency resolved if nothing more than a socket is >> created, which is a clever trick (I have no idea how well it works >> out >> in practice, though I have used a .socket service once and that >> worked >> out fine (with the caveat that the first connection fails)). > > Yeah, this is a brilliant idea. just as a side note, when I was doing performance latency testing (for industrial robotics applications) on real-time Linux kernels (RTAI, soft real-time preempt, and hard real-time preempt) I noticed that I got better latencies when when I loaded up the system with a LOT of processes and workload. If you end up looking into the RT stuff, let me know off list and maybe I can send a link or six. EBo --